4 ms·

Physicists would have preferred to do it with calculus -indeed, intro QM is usually taught with calculus, not with linear algebra. But you can't go very far wit

Physicists would have preferred to do it with calculus -indeed, intro QM is usually taught with calculus, not with linear algebra. But you can't go very far without talking about operators and eigenstates. Linear algebra fits the underlying physical phenomenon. People have tried to develop nonlinear versions of quantum mechanics, with no success so far. In particular, if quantum mechanics was not exactly linear, then a quantum computer would be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time! To get an intuition of why quantum mechanics looks the way it does, Scott Aaronson is extremely helpful: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

qubex 9y ago
You can also express QM/QFT in terms of matrix algebra (S-Matrix formalism).
- comicjk 9y ago
  That's a subset of the linear algebra used in quantum mechanics, no? Any transformation between QM states can be expressed as a unitary matrix - this is not a particular characteristic of scattering phenomena with S-matrices. The quantum states are still vectors, as in the rest of QM.
  - qubex 9y ago
    On second thoughts, I expressed myself very poorly... it goes without saying that matrices and linear algebra are identical; what I meant was that one can compute quantum interactions with the S-Matrix alone and not need to ‘explicitly’ use linear algebra concepts to deal with superposition of states & cetra. The focus on the s-matrix as a fundamental formalism was spearheaded by Wheeler, Heisenberg, and Landau (and amongst others), if my memory serves. P.S. Even this statement is formally quite weak, but hopefully I have clarified myself enough to transfer my intended meaning. Apologies.
eigenstuff 9y ago
I think the main reason for the initial focus on calculus in intro QM is more to do with making sure you have a solid grasp of the ugly, complicated, hard way of doing things before diving into the more elegant, easy way (once armed with an appreciation of all the whacky machinery under the simplified proverbial hood). I recall my intro classical mechanics had a similar approach on a few topics, and my professor explicitly said this was the reason for it. That and the elegant way is generally more abstract, and it's important to have the foundation the abstraction was built on first. The link you posted looks interesting and fun to read, I'm looking forward to going through it after work. Thank you!
- comicjk 9y ago
  I'm not a fan of the teaching method where you do something the hard way first so you'll appreciate it, but I was a pretty lazy student so that's understandable. Maybe it works for most students.

qubex 9y ago

You can also express QM/QFT in terms of matrix algebra (S-Matrix formalism).

comicjk 9y ago
That's a subset of the linear algebra used in quantum mechanics, no? Any transformation between QM states can be expressed as a unitary matrix - this is not a particular characteristic of scattering phenomena with S-matrices. The quantum states are still vectors, as in the rest of QM.
- qubex 9y ago
  On second thoughts, I expressed myself very poorly... it goes without saying that matrices and linear algebra are identical; what I meant was that one can compute quantum interactions with the S-Matrix alone and not need to ‘explicitly’ use linear algebra concepts to deal with superposition of states & cetra. The focus on the s-matrix as a fundamental formalism was spearheaded by Wheeler, Heisenberg, and Landau (and amongst others), if my memory serves. P.S. Even this statement is formally quite weak, but hopefully I have clarified myself enough to transfer my intended meaning. Apologies.

eigenstuff 9y ago

I think the main reason for the initial focus on calculus in intro QM is more to do with making sure you have a solid grasp of the ugly, complicated, hard way of doing things before diving into the more elegant, easy way (once armed with an appreciation of all the whacky machinery under the simplified proverbial hood). I recall my intro classical mechanics had a similar approach on a few topics, and my professor explicitly said this was the reason for it. That and the elegant way is generally more abstract, and it's important to have the foundation the abstraction was built on first. The link you posted looks interesting and fun to read, I'm looking forward to going through it after work. Thank you!

comicjk 9y ago
I'm not a fan of the teaching method where you do something the hard way first so you'll appreciate it, but I was a pretty lazy student so that's understandable. Maybe it works for most students.